Posing uncomfortable questions using social media is never easy. Many a time while doing so, I have noticed that I am often misunderstood as being confrontational and sweeping judgments are made on what my views on a certain subjects are. Many times the reactions are aggressive in nature and there exists an underlying tone of contempt. This I’m sure is true, not just in my case, but in others’ as well. In my defense, in posing these questions, I try to ascertain public opinion and then try to analyse further what gives rise to such an opinion. The aim may not always be to take certain sides but rather to better understand public opinion. Often the questions would be rhetoric and is meant to provoke a response much like a moderator in a debate competition. This involves the risk of being classified as a non-conformist to public opinion or a rebel. However, this is far from the reality. Yes, I do at times, hold a strong opinion on a subject and refuse to waver on it. However, this is only if I am completely convinced and can answer the “uncomfortable questions” not just with emotion but with logic and reason more importantly. That being said, no matter how convinced I am about my opinion, I am still open to hearing other’s opinions with an open mind before jumping to label that person as rebel, as we need to accept that not everything can be put in black and white. I may have been guilty of that in the past but I am more conscious of it now. Very often it is a grey area.
What I wish to say is that it is possible for one to ask questions without bias, evoking and provoking a response in defense of a certain view. Playing devil’s advocate is an excellent way to ascertain how well founded people’s opinions are and help in finding certain answers. I recall once, in trying to analyse a very radical view of a certain public figure (since it was in the news and all over social media), evoking angry responses as well as sympathetic ones. I was accused of using a wrong and stupid starting point to try and understand a subject. I, of course did not mind it, as understanding of a subject needn’t always have the most obvious starting point. And that’s the beauty of being able to ascertain for yourself how you choose to approach a subject. Modern thinking involves completely unconventional approaches.
To elaborate on what I have written above, I would like to take the current refugee crisis in Europe as an example. It is clear that there exists two different camps; the “pro-immigrant” and the “anti-immigrant”. I have been spending considerable time in understanding more about this subject and as I have suggested above, in ascertaining public opinion and what leads to its formation. In doing so, I have encountered extreme animosity between the two camps, often leading to name calling and sweeping judgements being made. An example of this is the “pro-immigrant” camp labelling the “anti-immigrant” camp as racists and inhuman.
Racism is a very strong word and I would think a million times before deciding to use it. Every community, society and country is guilty of some form of racial discrimination and while “racism” exists in very strong and obvious forms in certain parts of the world, it is exhibited in much lesser forms but in no less obvious and patronising ways in other parts. Hence I would be largely reluctant to quickly dismiss someone as racist. However, let us accept that it exists.
So getting back to the example- I think it is very fallacious to immediately label the “anti-immigrant” camp as being racist even though there may be some unapologetic racists within. It is not racism but a “fear”, the fear of being overrun and inundated with immigrants from another land and the risks that it involves, in all aspects; social, economic, cultural and security. These fears are founded on past occurrences that have influenced them to think this way and hence they make a sweeping judgement labeling the immigrants as a threat to the host population and Europe. While this is not true in my humble opinion (and you need not agree with me) and that it is a gross over-reaction I would still respect their opinion and welcome it to the discussion table. The best way to combat this “xenophobia” would be not with shouting expletives or name calling but rather with providing accurate information that would help quell their fears. The insecurity comes with the lack of the understanding of the subject, the history, the reality and the statistics to back it. If they are still not convinced, so be it. It is but human nature to look out for oneself and fears can take decades to wash away. In a debate, there are always two sides just like in the parliament there is always an opposition.
As we can see above, there can be an approach where you consider both sides without being militant. There are those who are still looking for certain answers they haven’t yet got, who wish to research more on the subject before jumping to conclusions or simply persons who respect that there will be opposing opinions and ask the uncomfortable questions to both sides or maybe even still those who play their part through their deeds, based on their best judgement, rather than only be involved in the debate, until they have formed an opinion. For me, these are the persons who suffer the most as they are looked upon with contempt and accused of fence sitting by the two warring sides each believing that there can exist no other opinion other than their own. In the defense of these people, it is important this group exists, asking the uncomfortable questions and being open minded in accepting that there can be various solutions and approaches to a single problem. And unless they can answer these uncomfortable questions themselves, they “may” refuse to take certain sides.
(I am absolutely open to opposing views on what I have discussed above. If there is any ambiguity or error in my analysis above, you are more than welcome to let me know)